Quick Look: Parallelism in Landscape Photography

Part of what can make an image both visually appealing and conceptually interesting is the connection between its different parts. An image is a whole made of differentiable elements, and these elements can either be separate or have a variety of relations between them. To make an image which is indeed a whole and not just different layers on top of each other, a photographer needs to make the layers (or elements) communicate with each other. But how? One way, which I will detail here, is parallelism.

A softly-lit iceberg resembles the contour of Mount Uummannaq, Greenland. An example of simple, low-level parallelism.

When pre-visualizing an image, especially its composition, one needs to take into account the possible similarities, or parallelisms, that the environment offers. For example, it’s very often that there is a lack of connection between the sky and the earth in a landscape shot. But a bold red-colored flower on the ground can parallel a setting sun in the sky, thus strengthening the connection between them and bonding heaven and earth in the image, which has clear philosophical and visual implications.

But it’s not only color – shapes, lines and textures can also parallel each other – light rays in the clouds with lines in the sand, lenticular clouds with rounded pools, the options are endless. The important thing to keep in mind is to make these parallelisms stand out, making the viewer realize our intention in including them in the image.

Parallelism can serve its goals even better if it is of a higher level: more than two parts of the image being parallel to each other in the same way or in different ways, or the same part being parallel in more than one way.

See for example the second image shown here. There are two parallelisms: firstly there’s the one made by the architects who chose to make the famous lighthouse of Kalfshamarsvik, Iceland resemble the basalt columns in the area it was built on. Secondly, the yellow patch in the midst of the dark: on the ground – the yellow vegetation. On top – the light coming out of the lighthouse. Both share color and both stand out of their dark, gloomy, lava-column-shaped surroundings. The choice of dark exposure made these elements stand out even more, strengthening the bond between them and the image’s integrity.

'Light in the Dark', Kalfshamarsvik, Iceland

Another good example can be seen in the third image. The parallelism between the shadow cast by the center tree and the flare caused by the sun bonds the ground and the sky, which are in turn both bonded to the main subject – the tree – in different ways: the flare touches and intersects the tree, while the shadow is caused by the tree. The three layers of the image are thus intimately connected, and the image is more interesting and appealing because of this connection.

The last 2 shots are particuarly good examples of parallelism. Like Lawrence and few others, I recognise parallelism as a form of 'repetition'. Our minds sense harmony when we can link one or more common elements in a picture. Repeating a common shape, line, or colour helps unify the image so it works as a whole... everything just belongs.

Parallelism is a subset to the idea of repetition, a concept well understood in the art world, whether it be visual or musical. A Bach fugue exhibits it.

One of the most influential books in my years of photographing and the study of photography is called "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander. Now subjectively, it is about architecture, nevertheless, a great learning tool. But then doing architectural photography such a book is indeed informative.

Opposite to this are fractals, which possess their own patterns of repetition, found all over nature.

I like oil paintings of landscapes. When I see oil painting landscapes in an art museum, the same scene photographed appears to be flat and still. For example the oil paintings of Yosemite Valley in California exhibited in the De Young Museum and the Crocker Art Gallery appear to be real, the water and shading are appealing while the nearby photos of the same scenes are flat and don't convey the appearance of motion and flowing water.

Does the painter see something that the camera doesn't? Would focus stacking make the photos as good as the paintings?

Answer is almost out of subject .. take a picture of a painting with DSLR you will never get same rich result as the original painting..JPG are 8 bit and best out of price available monitors are 10 bits .. which means you will never get more than 8-9EV continuous dynamic. I imagine paintings are probably between 16 et 20 continuous EV .. You can always compress 14EV like many sony's users like to do, they just get funky fluo or washed colours .. 14EV dynamic compressed in 8bit file is just almost useless or rarely interesting. Compressed dynamic is perfect for facebook, 500px, but has nothing to see with a painting and 16 to 20 ev continuous dynamic.

Also don't forget that oil painting are three-dimensional and light usually shines on the from one or two directions. So you get reflections and shadows from the parts that stick out in a way that a flaw photography cannot provide.

A painting is a fiction. The painter makes what he finds being a suitable representation of what he sees and/or feels. A skilled painter can use a very limited hue range to picture a very dramatic scene, often in a very nice an believable way.

A photographer, on the other hand, is limited to reality plus the kind of manipulations he can make. A plain photo often looks boring or have a by far to large dynamic range., e.g. the sky is often too bright.

The photographer can use graduated filters, but that often looks fake. He can also use HDR, and that also often looks fake. He can do dodging or burning. etc etc But, at the end of day ... it is alsomt impossible to get the kind of freedom that a painter has.

And this, even though a painter has a very limited palette of colors to choose from.

Excellent points. And usually when you're sitting at home looking at your laptop you're missing the psychological and architectural cues that you get at a museum. Don't forget that museums are built, decorated, and lit to put you into a kind of hyper-receptive state so that you are more likely to notice at and feel the effect that the artist creates. Go to a real photo gallery like www.mountainlight.com in Bishop, Calif. and you might see the pictures there a little differently.

I dont have images up because my portfolio isnt very good. It's not worth looking at.

However, this is a photography site - if you are going to criticise someone's whole aesthetic then its hardly unreasonable for others to expect you to be able to back up your criticism with actual work showing your own aesthetic.

There are many differences between a painting and a photograph, and one of the more salient is the difference in projection. Because we can turn our head around, we see the world in the spherical projection. To paint it on a flat surface we typically convert it to a rectilinear or a cylindrical projection, but we have the freedom to adjust things to make them look closer to our perception. A camera can't do that – most lenses use a rectilinear projection, and they can't adjust just that one rock, or that one waterfall to make it look less distorted, or more 3D.

What we see with our eyes undergoes a lot of interpretation in our brain before we put it on canvas. The camera can't interpret anything for you.

@Vlad - there is an interesting program that can analyse the content of an image and make content less parts smaller and content rich parts larger. The result is quite good and do not look as weird as it sounds. The same kind of thing would be possible to do with perspective.

I'm sure that we used to call this "rhythm", or "repetition". A form of co-incidence. Like Elliott Erwitt's "Crane and Tap", or whatever it's called; but not the same as repetitive pattern.In philosophy, these coincidences show no causal connection, but are traditionally seen as a godlike influence in this context, i.e. with no apparent connection to each other. So, look out for co-incidence, and if you see it, use that accident!

Hahaha, actually no. It's just that as an editor I was really impressed with how well written the article was. Rarely do you find an article concise and yet brings across the point perfectly without going off into the woods. No disrespect to dpreview but some of their articles are just too … what's the word … ugh … lengthly … before getting to the point.

Short, sharp, full of ideas and lovely examples. I will take these thoughts with me when i bodge my own landscape attemots as spring slowly hits here. Thanks for the article Erez. Always enjoy your writing.

Excellent article by a very capable photographer. That's a lot of information very effectively demonstrated in a short article, embodied best in the second and third image. Integrity of composition, relationship between elements in terms of shape, line, texture, color is a key element of design that's often overlooked or misunderstood.

To me, articles like this try to teach color-blind people to see in color. The visual relationships referenced in the article may, in fact, exist in a given shot. But photographers who have a "good eye" recognize such things without any analysis whatsoever. Is it possible to improve ho-hum photos by applying teachable visual principles? Yes. But only through long and diligent practice can one learn to see visual relationships more intuitively.

With good examples people will get to like that and will imitate and then start the journey. Over-analysis is a risk, when everything gets defined to death. So more photos, less words (but keep the hints) and it is good. Readers come with having different levels of needs. Some may start from "initiation" stage. Others need a periodic refresh or inspiration.

Disagree strongly. As a person who lacks a natural "good eye", I greatly appreciate the tips offered. They allow me to learn and not be limited by my first abilities. Tho I may never be a master, I can enjoy my hobby more by learning, and yes, I have learned by by articles like this, and yes my images are better for it, and no, it doesn't require undue diligence.Thank you to the author, and to other authors who have offered similar tutorials.

@incoherent1Agree with you.Is there any famous photographer who didn't have training?Any doctor, pianist?My pictures got a lot better after I took some photography classes.This type of article is good.Keep them coming.BC

"Many of the best photographers both past and present were trained as painters first."

First of all, according to dpreview members, pretty much anyone who posts a picture here is one of the best photographers to have ever lived. This is a fact-free zone in regards in those regards.

Second, I can't even remember the number of times these guys mention the painter angle. There are photographers out there who actually trained as painters, and who have proof that they actually painted something, and an education in that regard. Drawing a brush around in Photoshop to add soft glow or whatever, does not qualify as a background in painting.

@oliver26n - The first sentence is true. The second paragraph is true sarcastically because it supports many photographers on this site who are narcissistic. To many Photoshop is the new painting. It can make a bad photo look good and a good photo look bad.

Which is the real reason many people pick up a camera. Not to create art, otherwise why do so many buy a 5D MKII and immediately begin pumping out the same tired, cliched junk that looks like it could have come from any of ten thousand different "me too" pretenders? But hey, it gets thumbs up on facebook and other social media and everyone knows that it's the THUMBS UP you got twenty years ago on a now defunct website that you'll remember when you're old and look back on your life!

I am a programmer, and not a young one. I am trained in mathematics, physics and logic - not in particular in programming. I consider myself a good programmer. Young programmers often have a very genuine computer science training, but almost none in natural science and mathematics. They are also good programmers, but in a very different way.

So - yes - an art trained photographer and a photography trained photographer is not the same thing.

"There are, of course. My point is that many current photographers who imply some sort of training or connection to painting have neither."Many? how many? How are you certain? How does this inform your critique of their work?How about naming some?

I think everyone should try to keep things civil in the comments. This is a philosophical discussion of the relationship between art and photography. We should not attack ad hominem.

The biggest troll ever was a guy by the name of Socrates. He would challenge all the experts and pundits of his day on their expertise and knowledge. He was a pretty smart guy which is why he is remembered.

I feel all these shots could be made stronger.The iceberg image would need to be cropped more tightly from bottom and top.The lighthouse needs to be composed with slightly more land and less sea, and more central position so that the basalt radiates toward the lighthouse.The tree shot looks better to me when cropping off the bright top till the curve in the dune.

Actually. I keep thinking about what you said and come to the conculsion that you might not be right

If you crop the top and bottom of the iceberg photo, then the refection hits the bottom of the frame. Or it gets cut off – losing the symmetry.

It's not clear, without knowing what exists outside of the frame whether the lighthouse pic could be framed differently. It's also not clear that, even if it could be framed differently, it would actually be better.

If you crop the last photo to the dune, then I think you lose the parallelism of the forked light and the tree. Also the brightness of the sky gives tonal balance to the range of tones in the photo.

If the iceberg reflection was like a mirror, it could have worked. When it is wavy, I prefer to appreciate the wavy part of the reflection and the details of the iceberg. Now either is too far away to appreciate their details.

Cropping off the bright sky eliminates the divided focus between light source and the shadow, without losing the parallel with the beams. It removes what is predictable to make it more mysterious.

So you joined the community less then 3 weeks ago, you have no gallery or info to judge what type of photographer you are. If you are going to criticise every single article you post on, you need to back that up as a photographer of some merit, otherwise be quiet and you might learn something.

I couldn't possibly learn anything without paying $4240 to Erez for his Iceland workshop, for example. Which is the whole point of his writing on dpreview. He certainly wasn't writing anything here before he was charging big $$$ for the workshops.

I'm sure you would address it to me as well, no worries. My point still stands. I'm sure Erez appreciates your defending him while he's busy writing his workshop adverts and signing on more suckers for handholding to the same old locations which are so overused they literally have tripod holes bored into the rock.

"I actually feel the panoramic crop enhances the symmetry. I would put this on the wall instead of the original."You have reduced the contribution of the reflection, and the power of those parallel lines, by crowding the cutoff at the bottom. No real increase in detail was gained.In the Namibia shot you lost the wonderful curve of the mountain in the distance, and, once again crowded the top of the tree.These are not better crops. They are different.

@oliver26n"a bum on the street"You have no information with respect to the "bums" story, their mental health history, etc.How compassionate of you oliver26n.Not!Gives us a clue of the kind of person you are.BC

You didn't offer any type of critical appraisal of his work, all you did was cast unfounded aspersions on why he was featured. If you don't understand that, there is no point continuing this conversation.

Everyone here is worshiping at his feet as if he's the second coming of Ansel. He's just another Photoshopper and workshop seller who relies on that for his living, not selling images or prints.

I maintain that dpreview is shilling for him because in addition to linking to his website, they actually list out every one of his upcoming workshops, with a direct link. There are more links to his workshops in this paid advertisement than there are links in a regular dpreview camera review.

oliver26n might have a point about rubbing shoulders with Dpreview but his comment "bum on the street" renders him as a machine, self-righteous person who hides his unhappy inner world behind his criticism.

Then why you waste your precious time here? Seems like you are creating a completely artificial, temporary little world for yourself on DPR, fingers hovering desperately over the keyboard writing envy crap.

If you really hate this site's editorial approach why bother to be here? I mean you have been trolling around for less than a month, just delete your account and let people be, we are sure there are other sites willing to accept you.

(a) you fill your posts with over-the-top exaggerations, as you try to negatively characterise the comments of people who find your posts irrelevant / spiteful / negative / annoying.

(b) you state that those criticising your abysmal attitude are "rabid supporters" of the photographer. Obviously, the two things are entirely separate, but it does highlight your lack of sensible argument

Oliver, What's wrong if the guy sell his workshops? Many photography bloggers do that even when they are not even good taking pictures. One day they review cameras and the next they have a dozen followers taking boring pictures at bricks and checking sharpness graphs.

Yeah, shame on DPReview. After reading the article, mywallet was missing $5! Don't know what I bought, but obviously I don't possess the free will or wherewithal to resist being targeted by an ad. Shady, shady, shady...

Oliver, as far as I know DPReview is not pro bono website. Since none of us pay anything for being part of this community maybe you should stop complaining and let people make a living, or just leave the club.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.